<div dir="ltr">Sorry sir in the previous plot the energy difference was not per atom. So here I am attaching the Corrected plot. My system contains 20 atom.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:09 PM, paresh rout <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paresh.rout88@gmail.com" target="_blank">paresh.rout88@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thank you very much sir. That was a very helpful reply. Now I understand smearing. Just one more query, I did a convergence test with k-point sampling by fixing the F-D smearing value to 0.00184 and the energy difference between C-type and G-type seems to be converged (I have attached the convergent test plot). If I understand your explanation correctly then this result should also be reliable. Please let me know if I am wrong.<div><br><div> I will also do the convergent test with M-V(0.01) and the second solution that you have suggested.</div><div>(The K-points grids are 8 8 6 , 10 10 8, 12 12 10, 14 14 12, previously I was using 8 8 6)<span class=""><br><div><br><div>Kind Regards</div></div><div>Paresh Chandra Rout<br></div><div>Research Scholar</div><div>INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, BHOPAL<br></div><div><br></div></span></div></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Nicola Marzari <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nicola.marzari@epfl.ch" target="_blank">nicola.marzari@epfl.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
Dear Paresh,<br>
<br>
<br>
maybe this is easier to follow:<br>
<a href="http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/ElectronicTemperature" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/ElectronicTemperature</a><br>
<br>
The main concept is that with very small smearing you need *a lot* of<br>
k-points<br>
to perform the correct Brillouin zone integrations - so with a 0.00184<br>
smearing<br>
you have a *large* error due to insufficient sampling, not a small error.<br>
<br>
Solution 1 - if you do not want to think, ever, in your life, use 0.01<br>
Ry of m-v<br>
or m-v smearing, and increase the k-point sampling until the difference<br>
in energy<br>
between G and C type is converged.<br>
<br>
Solution 2 - plot the energy difference between G and C as a function of<br>
smearing,<br>
for m-v smearing of 0.005, 0.010, 0.015, 0.020, 0.025, and with at least<br>
3 or<br>
4 k-point sampling. Use the discussion from<br>
<a href="http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/ElectronicTemperature" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://theossrv1.epfl.ch/Main/ElectronicTemperature</a><br>
to understand what to do.<br>
<br>
nicola<br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
On 30/06/2015 17:07, paresh rout wrote:<br>
> Dear all,<br>
> I am dealing with a transition metal oxide compound (ABO3), Where I use<br>
</span>> cold smearing *m-v(0.02)* for geometry optimization and for total energy<br>
> calculation I use *f-d (0.00184*) at the final optimized structure. I<br>
<span>> have calculated the total energy for various type of magnetic ordering<br>
> like (G-type, C-type). The total energy (SCF) for G-type and C-type are<br>
</span>> in reverse ordering for different smearing technique (*G-type is the<br>
> ground state for* *MV smearing and C-type is the ground state for FD*).<br>
> But when I reduced the value of degauss of *MV to 0.008 *I got the same<br>
<span>> ordering as FD.<br>
> I am very confused about the smearing technique . I have also read Prof.<br>
> Nicola's thesis about smearing but there I did not get rid of my<br>
> confusion also I did not find about FD technique . Can anybody kindly<br>
> tell me about the right smearing technique which I can use for the spin<br>
> polarized calculation ? Any reply would be highly appreciated.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Kind Regards<br>
> Paresh Chandra Rout<br>
> Research Scholar<br>
> INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, BHOPAL<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Pw_forum mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pw_forum@pwscf.org" target="_blank">Pw_forum@pwscf.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum</a><br>
><br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Prof Nicola Marzari, Chair of Theory and Simulation of Materials, EPFL<br>
Director, National Centre for Competence in Research NCCR MARVEL, EPFL<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Pw_forum mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pw_forum@pwscf.org" target="_blank">Pw_forum@pwscf.org</a><br>
<a href="http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>